LLMs Are Currently Not Helpful at All for Math Research: Hamkins
1–10 of 30 posts
Re: LLMs Are Currently Not Helpful at All for Math Research: Hamkins
#2[flagged]
Re: LLMs Are Currently Not Helpful at All for Math Research: Hamkins
#3> The frustration, for Hamkins, goes beyond mere incorrectness—it’s the nature of the interaction itself that proves problematic.
I would assume pairing LLMs with a formal proof system would help a lot. At the very least, the system can know what is incorrect, without lengthy debates, which frustrate him most.
This won't help the system discover or solve new math, but it make the experience far more endurable.
Re: LLMs Are Currently Not Helpful at All for Math Research: Hamkins
#4[dead]
Re: LLMs Are Currently Not Helpful at All for Math Research: Hamkins
#5"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it."
Well, this definitely won't make the front page despite upvotes. Too many people here are heavily invested and cannot stand for it.
Re: LLMs Are Currently Not Helpful at All for Math Research: Hamkins
#6> “I’ve played around with it and I’ve tried experimenting, but I haven’t found it helpful at all. Basically zero. It’s not helpful to me. And I’ve used various systems and so on, the paid models and so on.”
Eh... I don't know. It's hard for me to believe such absolutist takes. Especially since other proeminent mathematicians (i.e. Tao) have spoken highly of the help and value they get from these systems.
I also see this kind of takes in my field. Especially from "senior" people, 20+ years of experience. The problem is that, when pressed, their "trying it out" is often the most basic, naive, technically atrocious type of testing. "I tried coding with it but it's useless" -> they tried once, 3 years ago, in a chatgpt web interface, and never touched it since.
I think there's a lot of disconnect between the overhypers and deniers. Both are wrong, IMO, and unfortunately both are extremely vocal while also being stubborn and unwilling to try different things. But my gut feeling is that if in 2025/26 someone says "basically zero" they are wrong. Or naive. Or make strawman arguments. And ignorable.
Re: LLMs Are Currently Not Helpful at All for Math Research: Hamkins
#7"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it." Well, this definitely won't make the front page despite upvotes. Too many people here are heavily invested and cannot stand for it.
It's currently #15 on the front page.
Re: LLMs Are Currently Not Helpful at All for Math Research: Hamkins
#8Terry Tao has found them helpful in the past[0], and I’d trust him over Hamkins.
[0] https://terrytao.wordpress.com/2025/12/08/the-story-of-erdos...
Re: LLMs Are Currently Not Helpful at All for Math Research: Hamkins
#9"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it." Well, this definitely won't make the front page despite upvotes. Too many people here are heavily invested and cannot stand for it.
It's currently #15 on the front page. https://hnrankings.info/46496026/
I believe you, but also believe me when I tell you it is not on my frontpage.
ctrl-F llm
https://i.imgur.com/D5K6b9c.png
Not this story.
edit: Hi fragmede, I'd reply but Nazi @dang says I'm posting too fast again. I guess you won't be working on that fully free chromebook hardware either. I'll keep trying anyway. I'm not motivated by money like you guys. Keep chasing that carrot however.
Re: LLMs Are Currently Not Helpful at All for Math Research: Hamkins
#10Terry Tao has found them helpful in the past[0], and I’d trust him over Hamkins. [0] https://terrytao.wordpress.com/2025/12/08/the-story-of-erdos...
They do different kinds of mathematics. Tao works mainly in analytic number theory & that's why he got a Fields medal. Hamkins works in foundations of mathematics, logic, & computability theory.